the March preceding,) does it need that I detain the reader by noticing it? Mr. Arnold omits to observe that the reason given in the Horæ for specifying the case in that connexion, was that, though the official recognition of their death by the assembled delegates in Council had not then taken place, yet every thing even then concurred to assure them of the fact. As to the main point asserted of the " complacency and mutual congratulations" of the assembled prelates and princes,' at the triumphant ending of the Council, or the splendid banquetings and rejoicings, such as completely to answer to the very spirit of the Apocalyptic statement in the clause referred to, Mr. Arnold cannot and will not dispute it. It is matter of history. 3. Nor does it seem more needful to stop at his third objection, which has reference to my explaining the seven chiliads of the prophecy from the chiliads of the Israelitish commonwealth. What the use of his quoting passages to show that the word chiliads is also used simply and numerically to designate thousands? Who knows not, or would dispute this? What Mr. Arnold should have done, in order to making out a reasonable and valid objection against my solution,-viz., first to disprove the Apocalyptic designation of the inhabitants of the Roman world, after its conversion to Christianity, under the title of the twelve tribes of Israel, or secondly, to disprove there being the chiliadic tribual and territorial division in the ancient Israel,-or thirdly, to disprove the answering of the seven Dutch Lordships, consistently with this parallelism, to seven of the Israelitish chiliads,— or fourthly, to disprove the answering of the connected history to the Apocalyptic context, all this Mr. Arnold has not even attempted. The explanation, says he, seems to me too absurd to need refutation." That is all his argument! : 4." And they (the witnesses) ascended up to heaven in the cloud and their enemies beheld them. And the same hour there was a great earthquake: and the tenth part of the city fell: and there were slain in the earthquake seven chiliads, names of And the remnant were affrighted. And they" (the ascended witnesses, according to the Hora) "gave glory to the God of heaven." men. 1 I use Dean Waddington's words. 2 Roscoe particularly notices them. "It would be hardly credible," says Mr. Arnold, "if one had not seen to what an extent Mr. Elliott is led away by preconceived opinions, that he maintains that the last words evidently mean that the ascended witnesses gave glory to the God of heaven, not the affrighted remnant: thus giving different nominative cases to two immediately consecutive verbs joined by and :—an impossible construction!" The Italics are Mr. Arnold's.-Will Mr. Arnold then have the goodness to explain the following passages. 1. Gen. Thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs and they shall serve them, and they shall afflict them, 400 years."-2. Mark viii. 23 &c : "And he (Jesus) asked him (the xv. 13: 66 : blind man) if he saw any thing. And looking up he said, I see men as trees walking. Then he again put his hands on his eyes, and made him look up; and he was restored &c.”—3. Luke xv. 15: “And he (the prodigal) joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields, &c."-4. 1 Cor. xv. 42: "So also is the resurrection of the dead: (avasa015 TWY VEкpwv) it is sown in corruption;" &c. I wait to see Mr. Arnold's explanation of these passages, on any other than the impossible" construction of "giving two different nominative cases to two immediately consecutive verbs joined by and." Such passages might be multiplied almost indefinitely.-As to my reason for choosing a more distant nominative in the Apocalyptic passage in question, Mr. A. notes, but does not, cannot impugn it: "It is contrary to the whole tenor of the Apocalyptic description of the enemies of Christ and his witnesses, (in other words, of the mass of the inhabitants of the great city, and this even to the last,) to represent them as giving glory to God." SECTION V.-The Apocalyptic Beast, or Antichrist. To this subject of the Apocalyptic Beast, (i.e. Antichrist,) and its adjuncts the Dragon and the Beast's Image, Mr. Arnold has devoted some thirty pages, or nearly half of his Pamphlet :a space not disproportionably large to its importance; yet at the 1 From page 25 to 52. same time quite large enough in which to state, discuss, and (if they are wrong) confute, the main evidence and arguments on which I ground my explanation of the Beast, as symbolizing the Roman Popes and Popedom. But such is not my critic's plan or fancy. After vehement reprobation of my opinion, as "that which should call forth the indignant remonstrances of all who honour the word of God," and intimation of my having to "explain away almost every one of the more important features of Antichrist," 2 in order to make them discoverable in the Papacy, his plan of proceeding is as follows. First he gives, as "the picture of Antichrist presented to us in the Bible," a picture eminently partial; 3 some of the most distinctive and striking traits drawn in Sacred Scripture being omitted, and others that are given by no means correctly represented. Then, the basis for his argument having been thus laid down, he proceeds to argue that in six or seven particulars this picture does not suit the Papacy adducing however not seldom, by way of proof, evidence insufficient, if not incorrect; not without clear inconsistency and almost self-contradiction on some points, and these, points of by no means small importance.4 His disquisition he illustrates or varies by quotations for two or three pages here, and two or three there, from one German Professor about Ronge," and another about the Apostacy, and extracts from a Roman Catholic work of devotion called, "The Spiritual Combat," 7 and a parallelism also of his own, on the prohibition of meats and marriage, between Popery and Gnosticism.8 But he takes for the most part no more notice of the answers or the statements, even on these very points, in the "Hora Apocalyptica," than if such a Book had never existed, or his Pamphlet had not professedly taken to itself the title of "Remarks" upon it.-More of this in the sequel. For the present it will need that we note, by way of preliminary to the subject in hand, the picture that Scripture has actually drawn of the great Antichrist; and therewith lay a really sound basis for the reader's judgment on the 1 Page 29. a Ib. The passage will be given in a subsequent Note. 4 All this will be shown hereafter. Page 31. 5 Pages 33, 34. Pages 45-48. 7 Pages 35-37. 8 Pages 40-44. question here between us. It is well that Mr. Arnold agrees with me (and strangely perverted, I think, must be his judgment that disagrees) on the identity of the Beasts of Daniel and the Apocalypse both with each other, and with St. Paul's Man of Sin and St. John's Antichrist. Thus the time needed for proving their identity will be saved, and a satisfactory end to our discussion facilitated. To begin then with the three earlier prophecies on the subject, let the reader well note the extraordinary distinctiveness and variety of characteristic traits there laid down, respecting this Antichrist:-characteristics as to nation, time, place, character, acts, dominancy, and duration.-1. From Daniel it appeared that the adversary was to rise out of the fourth great empire, or Roman, after a certain remarkable division of it into ten kingdoms, kingdoms separate, yet some way connected under him as one body: that he was to sprout from it as a little horn, yet with a mouth speaking great things, as if small in physical power, but with mighty pretensions; and withal with the singular feature of eyes like the eyes of a man, as if in some particular sense a seer, or overseer that he would have success and supremacy such as to domineer among the ten Kings, with look more stout than his fellows; and would moreover speak blasphemous words against God, and persecute and wear out his saints: finally, that these saints would be given into his hand, or be under his domination,' for the period of a time times and half a time, or 1260 days, i. e. (on the year-day scale, of which more presently) 1260 years: at the end of which period the Son of Man would come in the clouds of heaven; and, after first casting the blasphemous horn and his kingdom into the burning flame, Himself take the kingdom.— 2. It appeared from St. Paul that this enemy of the Church was to arise out of an apostacy (the grand celebrated apostacy 2) from the Christian faith; 3 one not at that time developed, but of which 1 So Dan. ii. 38, a passage that will be quoted afterwards. 3 The word might in itself mean a political revolt, as well as a religious apostacy. And thus some of the old Fathers gave it the former sense, while others gave it the latter. But the notice of the mystery of iniquity then working, as that which would ultimately be matured into the apostacy that the apostle meant, and produce the man of sin as its head, seems to me quite decisive in favour of the latter view. the seeds however were even then sown, and its mystery of iniquity, or mysterious evil principle already secretly at work; nor ever to cease working, until it had expanded into full-blown apostacy, and brought forth the great enemy as its ultimate product or head :-further, that there was a certain particular let or hindrance then existing which prevented his development; a hindrance explained and known to the Thessalonian Christians, and which has been by the earlier fathers reported to us as the then reigning Roman Emperors or Government: and that on its removal, then at length the "Man of Sin" would be revealed; whether an individual, or rather (like the person and thing hindering)1 a succession of individuals and governing power :-his development being accompanied with lying wonders and miracles; his doctrine that of the mystery of iniquity and all-deceivableness of unrighteousness; his blasphemy and pride such that he would exalt himself above all that was called God and worshipped, yea and that he would sit in the temple of God, (whether the Church or the Jewish Temple, which last it could scarcely be,)2 shewing himself as if God; with success such, through Satan's assisting agency, as to draw in all to believe it but those that had pleasure in the truth further his titles were given; that of "the Man of Sin," as emphatically sin's offspring, promoter, and head; "the adversary," evidently of Christian saints and Church; the lawless one, as above all law; "the son of perdition," not only as one destroying and to be destroyed, but (since it was a title previously given in Scripture to Judas, and to no one but Judas,) as one probably of whom Judas, the false apostle and traitor, would prove to be but the fit prototype :-finally, as to his duration, that it would be extended to the very day of Christ's advent; and that then his destruction would be tremendously accomplished before the 18 KaтEXWV being used in the masculine of the imperial succession, as well as το κατεχον of the imperial power. The Jewish Temple was to be destroyed (as we know from history) before Antichrist's manifestation; and consequently it could not be the Temple meant. As to a temple built on the old site by Antichrist, (as some would construe it,) how could it be called God's temple? On the other hand the Christian Church is often designated as God's temple by the Apostles. And so consequently many of the more ancient Fathers here understood the phrase. 3 John xvii. 12. |